|
auxiliaires > do
> valeurs > emphase, insistance, vérité
The Guardian
p. 31 14.5.2007
Q: In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of
investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the
appearance —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't — it may give the appearance of something, but I
think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to — it's
precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear
the truth about why the decision was made.
Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the
President. I named them all. And the Justice Department made recommendations,
which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would no longer serve. And
they will go up and make the explanations as to why — I'm sorry this, frankly,
has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I
really am. These are — I put them in there in the first place; they're decent
people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the
scrutiny of all this, and it's just — what I said in my comments, I meant about
them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten
to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot
of politics in this town.
And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question
is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice
Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.
If the Democrats truly do want to
move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I
proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score
political points, or to put the klieg lights out there — which will harm the
President's ability to get good information, Michael — is — I really do believe
will show the true nature of this debate.
And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If scoring
political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal
will really be evident for the American people to see.
Listen, thank you all for your interest.
President Bush’s
Comments on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, NYT, 21.3.2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20bush-text.html
Inside politics
Whatever you do
[ verbe ] ,
do [ auxiliaire
> valeur emphatique ] mention
the war
Ministers must engage with the public more intelligently if they are to sustain
support in an open-ended struggle with terrorism
Andrew Rawnsley
Sunday July 24, 2005
The Observer
Here is the paradox: they blame his war, but they rate him more. Pollsters are
reporting that a majority of people think there is a connection between the war
in Iraq and terror in London, however stridently and insistently Tony Blair and
his ministers refuse to acknowledge a link. And yet the Prime Minister who took
Britain into Iraq is also enjoying the best approval ratings he has had since
before the war. They judge him to be good in a crisis even when they think he
bears some responsibility for that crisis.
Whatever you do, do mention the war, G,
24.7.2005,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,,1535169,00.html
|
